Under the American Flag

Earlier today I watched a news report about an apparent new social media challenge called the "Eric Sheppard Challenge", named after a VSU student who is now the subject of a man hunt after carrying a weapon on campus during an anti-American flag protest. I understand that many of the people currently stomping on the flag are frustrated with things going on inside our country. However, I also believe we as American's should focus more on reforming and building our country up instead of tearing it completely apart. (we've had our own share of human rights violations as the rest of the world has.... slavery, WWII internment camps, etc.). Here's my letter, me writing as the devil's advocate of the logic of flag stomping, to those who wish to follow up on the "Eric Sheppard Challenge".




Dear "Flag-Stompers",

For 13 years of my life I stood up in a classroom with people of multiple socioeconomic and ethical backgrounds to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, stand at attention during the Star Spangled Banner, and even memorize the lyrics for our National Anthem. For five of those years I performed the Star Spangled Banner with people of multiple ethnic backgrounds before every Friday night football game. During my senior year of High School back in 2012, I helped raise the American Flag with the help of 8 fellow Cedartown High School Marching Band seniors. All of us from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.

America is far from perfect, however it's imperfections are what allows it to grow and become as close to perfect as possible. America's imperfections allow her to grow and change, sometimes more quickly than others, to adapt to what her citizens need. For without the ability to change, we would stay stagnant as the rest of the world move's forward.

Yes, America still faces racial tensions as we've all seen tighten in the past year. Yes, all American presidents, except President Obama, are/were white. However, was it not under the American flag that President Abraham Lincoln emancipated slavery? Was it not under the American Flag that Dr. Martin Luther King was able to give one of the most famous speeches, the "I Have a Dream Speech?" Was it not under the American Flag that we saw the civil rights act put in place? Is it not the American Flag by which President Obama stands?

It is no lie, racism has plagued the earth for at least the history from early colonization up to today. However, whether you realize it or not, racism is not because of the United States. It was an issue during the colonization of latin America in which Casta paintings portrayed a gradient that basically stated the darker the skin, the more savage the person. Also, did you know during the late 1880s that the phrase "White Man's Burden" was coined to describe how white Europeans had the burden of making African's "white" and "less savage'? Soap was even sold through advertisements that claimed it could turn an African's dark skin white. In fact, the country holding the colony suffering the most from white supremacy, the Congo, was Belgium. Hands were severed from people if a rubber quota was not met. Africans had no voice in what was happening to their land. The United States did not have a colony in Africa.

Again, I am not saying that America is completely white supremacist free. In fact, I never wrote that. During WWII, almost everyone on the west coast feared anyone who looked remotely Japanese. In fact, Japanese Americans were sent to interment camps. Before, during, and even after the civil war slavery was an issue that then turned to an issue of race after the Jim Crow laws took place.

However, despite looking at America's flaws that have happened under her flag, look at what has changed under her flag. Under the American flag we have the ability to stand up for our opinions. We have the ability to vocalize our opinions. We have the ability to see something that needs fixing, point it out, and stand up and fight for it.We have the ability to take same flag which represents our freedoms and comes off as a sign of hope to many, and stomp on it.

So, if you sincerely wish to display your anger towards America's "white supremacy", by all means, you have the freedom to do so. However, realize that you have the freedom to do so under the American Flag.

Sincerely,
The devil's advocate

Same Sex Marriage: The 21st Century Human Right Debate

            Same sex marriage has been a controversy in the United States and a cause for social movements across the country. State Legislatures and Courts have split views on the issue. Many have raised the moral question and argue marriage has been traditionally between a man and a woman. The increasing amount of legislative repeals, reviews, and numerous court cases has finally led to the Supreme Court to announce it will review the issue in April and deem if the US Constitution allows same sex marriage. However, the decision that the Supreme Court will be making is very heavy; the Supreme Court is going to be making a decision about a human right, marriage.

            After World War II, the Declaration of Human Rights was written. It opens stating that everyone has human rights despite any conditions that could cause discrimination. Further in the document, in article 16, the declaration of Human Rights states “men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.” The articles never say a person cannot marry another person of the same sex; it only states that men and women have the right to marry. 

One of the main arguments of people against same sex marriage is that same sex marriage is morally wrong and violates traditional practices. However, denying same sex marriage might be a moral wrong as well. Article 16 of the Declaration of Human Rights continues with two more statements. One of those statements states that marriage is to be entered into only with the full consent of the two people seeking marriage. If two of the same sex people wish to wed, the question of someone, who is not engaged to either person in the wedding party, to decide that two people cannot be wed arises. If two people wish to be wed, no one should have the ability to stop it. In today’s society, government is trying to put a halt to some weddings. The same weddings that the two brides or two grooms fully consented with.

The Supreme Court will also be making a decision on the final point in article 16 of the Declaration of Human Rights which declares that the state is responsible for the protection and recognition of a family unit because it’s fundamental to society. When same sex marriage occurs, some states will recognize the marriage and some won’t. This becomes an issue when birth certificates are made. If a same sex couple has a child, there are two parents and a child. Technically, that’s a family. If same sex marriage is deemed unconstitutional, society might decide not to recognize same sex families. Already, gays face bullying and personal attacks. There is no denying that children of same sex couples will also face personal attacks. If government does not recognize and protect these families through legislation to minimize the attacks, it’s a clear violation of human rights.

The United States Supreme Court is faced with a heavy decision. A modern 21^st century social concept is challenging not just the United States Constitution, but to what extent will the United States uphold itself to the Declaration of Human Rights. In just a few short weeks, the Supreme Court Justices will decide. Not everyone will be pleased with the decision, but in a country where human rights and human freedoms are preached from town halls to national televised events, the decision is more than just an issue of marriage. It’s a decision concerning the moral obligation for everyone to have human rights.

The Battle of Algiers: Nationalism vs. Morality.

            The Battle of Algiers, an Italian produced film about an Islamic based colony in Africa seeking freedom from French control, highlights many of the struggles faced by both the Algerians and the French during decolonization.  The Algerians are faced with discrimination and segregation due to racial and ethnic stereotypes set by white Europeans. The French are faced with loosing a colony and trying to control the shootings, bombings, and rebellions occurring inside the colony. However, the award-winning movie uses the characters Colonel Mathieu and Ali la pointe to illustrate the Battle of Algiers not as a battle for Algerian independence. The Battle of Algiers uses Colonel Mathieu and Ali La Pointe’s FLN to portray a battle between choosing actions based on nationalistic goals and actions based on human rights, morality, and a good conscience.

            Ali La Pointe is one of the first characters introduced to the audience. He’s an Islamic Algerian, former boxer, gambler, and violent in nature with a criminal record. While in prison he witnesses a martyr being executed. It triggers something deep inside him to help the cause of the Algerians; he decides it’s his life’s purpose to help free Algeria from French control even if it kills him.

            After being recruited by the FLN, he joins in willingly with their violent actions. He assists in police killings and sneaking weapons across the French-Islamic quarter border. Ali and the FLN fight against the French because the French promises of freedom weren’t all what they cut out to be. Separate quarters for the French population ended up being more modernized with boulevards, automobiles, electricity, and well lit shops and cafes. The French quarters also provided jobs. The Islamic quarters, however, provided housing and narrow streets that resembled alleyways without much lighting. Electricity was sparse and jobs were barely present.

The native Algerians already had the short end of the stick and that end continued to get shorter as tensions increased with the violence. Eventually, barricades were set up and curfew hours were put in place in an attempt to stop the terroristic actions of the FLN. People who wore traditional Islamic clothing were held back and often retained for extra screening before being allowed into the French quarter. Ali and the FLN had to encourage the women to cut their hair and wear European dresses in order to pass through security without being checked. The plan itself worked flawlessly. Each woman managed to pass through the guarded checkpoints with guards never questioning the bomb-loaded baskets. The biggest concern of one of the guards was getting to go to the beach with one of the European dressed FLN bombers. The French were so set on a stereotypical image of an FLN assassin, men wearing traditional Arabic clothing, that they let the enemy walk right through the barricade without screening.

When the French police signaled to France that they needed help to control the Algerians, they called on a French World War II hero named Colonel Mathieu and a band of French Paratroopers. Entering the streets of Algeria with their heads held high with national pride, dark aviators sunglasses covered the colonel’s eyes; his face showed no emotion as the French population cheered for him.

            Colonel Mathieu had the task of putting down rebellions led by the FLN. As he completed his job of finding out about the organization and ending it’s rule over the native Algerians, two faces of the colonel were present. As he gave orders and spoke about the nature of interrogations used on Algerians, he wore his dark aviator sunglasses. Wearing the dark sunglasses allowed for the Colonel to represent the French Government. The sunglasses covered up most of his face, hiding any emotion that might suggest he has the ability to feel remotely human. He made all his military decisions so France being could hold on to Algeria, including decisions about torture.

            One of the opening scenes in the movie is a scene in which prisoners were being tortured to get answers about the FLN’s leaders. Waterboarding and electrocution were just two of the ways paratroopers sought to get answers. None of the French paratroopers paused to consider their actions for it was all for France. It wasn’t until a press conference that a reporter brought up torture and the actual need for it. It was one of the few times that Colonel Mathieu removed his glasses. Instead of giving a straight answer, the colonel responded with a question for not only the reporters in the press conference but for the entire country of France and the world.

The questions asked by Colonel Mathieu targeted exactly how the public of both the French and Muslim quarters of Algiers felt. The first question he asked after being told that torture was against the law concerned how the public was justifying the bombing and killing of innocent French civilians. He did this to prove that everything was different in times of war; their were no considerations of the enemy being humans. The second concerned how much the people of France were willing to sacrifice for their nation’s control of Algeria. If France truly wanted to remain in Algeria, the torture was a necessary cost and would be continued.

The questions caused a stir within the press conference, the same way that news reports of conditions in other European colonies caused a stir throughout other nations. In the end, the people colonized might have dressed differently and had strange religious beliefs in comparison to the Christian religions of the Europeans. They might have started violent rebellions. However, people usually don’t rebel unless they have a just reason and cause to. For the FLN, the Algerians had a cause; freedom from being pushed into a corner and attempts to change their culture. They wanted to be able to walk down the streets of the French quarter without the entire city pointing out and accusing them falsely of being a crimminal.

In the final scene, Colonel Mathieu located Ali La Pointe and three of the remaining FLN conspirators. After threating to bomb their hideout unless they surrendered, the colonel walked away only to return with the dark glasses off and offerings for a peaceful surrender. He offered them multiple second chances. However, Ali and his companions did not accept any of them. Instead, they chose to die as Martyrs. The colonel walked away with his head hanging down; his glasses in a hand dropped to his side. His thoughts focused not on how foolish it would be to die for independence, but rather on how foolish it is that people have to die in order to prove that despite skin color, ethnicity, and culture, everyone is human.

The Academy Awards and The Modern Social Revolution

In my History class we have current events that we analyze. The following text is how the Academy Awards reflected the Modern Social Revolution concerning inequality currently going on in the United States. It discusses how society is still not conforming to key elements of the social contract theory that came about during the Revolutions of the 18th century.

The Academy Awards and The Modern Social Revolution

Sofie De Wandel

March 3, 2015

            Throughout history racial inequality is a reoccurring issue. Slaves were brought over into the areas now known as Latin America, South America, and the Caribbean by conquistadors during the 1500s. Slaves during the French and Haitian Revolution struggled to understand why the ideas of the social contract theory did not apply to them. Despite the 87th Academy Awards, held on February 22, 2015, happening roughly 400 to 500 years after the first African slaves were brought over to the New World, racial inequality is still present in today’s society. Having the Oscars highlight inequality through a perceived lack of diversity in nominees, the performance of the song “Glory”, and two musicians’ Oscar acceptance speeches brings to light that society is still refusing to live up to it’s own standards set in the social contract theories of the revolutionary time period.

            The opening remarks of Oscar’s host Neil Harris started off the theme of inequality. He joked, “Tonight we honor Hollywood’s best and whitest. Sorry, brightest.” It turns out, in all four acting award categories, not a single minority group was represented. Only one director nominated for the Director Honors of Best Picture, Alejandro G. Inarritu, wasn’t white. The director of best picture nominee “Selma”, Ava DuVernay, an African American female, was left off the director honors list. The fact that an African American was left off of the director’s honors list while whites and a Latino man made it onto the list begs the question of how the Academy of Film actually views African American directors. Such as in the casta system of colonial Spain, whites were higher up and portrayed to be able to have more privileges and obtain higher cultural knowledge than the indigenous of the Americas and the African Americans were at the very bottom of the list of ability to obtain such privileges and knowledge.

            While Ava DuVernay was not able to have her name on the list of director’s honors, the movie “Selma”, which she directed, still got recognized in a unique way. Musicians John Legend and Common performed the song “Glory”. The song itself talks about not giving up the fight for equality. It touched issues from the civil rights movement and issues that have been swept under the rug by the news media; issues like the Ferguson trial. After the performance received a standing ovation, the song received the Oscar for best original song. As if the performance itself did not send out a message to the audience in the theater and everyone watching from a television screen, Common and John Legend made sure to emphasis the need for equality during their acceptance speeches. They compared how there are more black men under correctional control today than were under slavery in 1850. They didn’t focus solely on African American’s either. The also spoke of the song and how it was meant to also be a call for equality concerning race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and social status.

            John Legend and Common’s song advocates one of the main points of the social contract theory; everyone has the right to life, liberty, and property. Bringing up the Ferguson shooting, where an African American man was reported to have been shot unarmed at night by a white male police officer, allowed for both musicians to challenge that society in a free country was preventing people of color from having life and liberty. Bringing this issue to light during the Oscars was a way to peacefully grab the attention of the news media and the audiences watching. It allowed the issue to be presented to not just minorities but to majorities of the population. The same way that the French Revolution took off by having the ideas of the social contract theory spread through the populations of both France and Haiti, the modern day social equality revolution achieved a modern parallel of that; it spread through not just to the elite of Hollywood, but to everyone watching.

            Najee Ali, head of a National Action Network chapter that had scheduled a protest during the Oscars concerning the lack of diversity, made the statement “Art can change the world…” With minority directors becoming recognized in the Academy Awards and songs concerning equality being performed on a stage with thousands of people watching, that statement becomes a reality. John Legend, Common, and Alejandro Inarritu took the meaning of art changing the world and set down a corner stone for a modern day social equality revolution.

A blond's logic on racism.

NOTE: please don't start a large debate on this. It's my opinion. I realize others might disagree and have other views on racism. However, I am willing to listen to what opinions are out there. If they are fact based.

So by opening up this blog post I take it you really want to know what blond logic I have to offer towards racism? 

Well, here it is:

The webster definition of racism is: 

 poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race; the belief that some races of people are better than others.

With the recent protests and court case involving the Ferguson case, I personally have no idea of the details of what happened. I don't know what went through the minds of the parties involved. All I know is that it sparked a seemingly nation wide protest concerning racism.

The only way to truly have racism end is if everyone was blind and deaf. No one would be able to hear accents. No one would be able to see differences. All what we would know is that there would be others around us.

So what's a more realistic approach to racism? 

(because let's face it, I love to talk and I'd like to be able to see what's going on around me so I don't fall flat on my face when I'm walking somewhere)

well, until everyone is willing to sit together in a giant circle and sing kum-ba-ya, there isn't an easy way to solve this problem.

We've got to, as a nation, be more understanding of not just other cultures, but other people. We've got to judge less, be more open minded, and not jump to conclusions. 

Just because there's a white girl, doesn't mean that Starbucks is her number one place to go to after the gym.

Just because someone is African-American doesn't mean that all they listen to is rap.

Just because someone is latino and doesn't speak english mean that they are illegal.

And who is to blame for setting up stereotypes? 

All of us. We are all guilty.

So ladies and gentlemen, whatever race you define yourself as, my honest logical approach to racism is to instead of  fighting each other is to sit together at a table, each person bring in their favorite dish, and start understanding these differences that we've used to draw lines. In the end, you might find if you close your eyes but open your mind, we have no need for racism. Something will always offend someone, it's enviable. However, imagine a world where our cultures were actually combined in "the great american melting pot."? 

I've learned a lot from my friends from literally all over the world and from multiple ethnic back grounds. I continue to learn more as I meet more people.

So I challenge you with my blond logic towards racism.

How much are you willing to take a moment and learn about the stranger sitting next to you on the subway? How much are you willing to take a moment and understand that different isn't wrong? For are we really afraid of each other or are we afraid of what we will become if we would actually close our eyes and open our minds.

What I realized when Michael Phelps got his second DUI.

I can't believe I'm about to "somewhat defend" someone who got a DUI.

What's worse, I can't believe I'm about to down talk the people blasting the guy who got the DUI.

Go ahead. Judge me.

I'm sure all swimmers have heard the news that Michael Phelps got a DUI.
I'm sure everyone (swimmers and non-swimmers) know the consequences of drinking and driving.

I'm not saying that it's good that Michael Phelps got a DUI. In fact, it doesn't make him look that great at all.

I am saying that maybe we aren't being good role models either.

But wait, we didn't get the DUI.

Guess what, we all know someone who has had a DUI before.

Yet for some reason we don't say "you should have known better to drink and drive" in fact, some people laugh it off and treat it as some hilarious story to share.

So why, if we joke about DUIs with friends do we suddenly turn around and blast a "celebrity"? Is it because they are "expected" to be perfect? Please. Everyone should be expected to try to achieve perfection. But reality is, no one is perfect and we've all made less than perfect decisions.

So in the end, yes Michael Phelps got a DUI again.

And yes, the situation could have ended up much more dramatic.

And no, I am not saying that drinking and driving should be something to just blow off.

But, shouldn't we learn a lesson from this also?

Breaking Bad News

A high school athlete stares blankly up as he is told he won't be able to play this season. He's physically strong, having survived hellish conditions to prepare for a season of a lifetime. He's mentally strong, having the determination to survive the hellish conditions and do so without thinking about quitting.

His body starts to shake and his eyes start to grow red as he fights back tears with nothing but his pride.

As I turn around to leave the room and see the next patient, I catch glimpse of his walls tumbling down. His pride fails him. His strength to stay strong slips away. His head falls into his open hands and he tries to take in a steady breath but its shaky.

As an athlete myself, I know how this pain feels. It's like breaking up with someone, but worse. You've spent literally your whole life dedicated to this sport. Hanging out with friends after school? Can't. Practice. Parties on the weekend? Can't. Games/matches/meets. Sleeping in? Morning Practices.

Suddenly, it's taken away from you.

This athlete got lucky, he's only out for one season. Yet, countless athletes recieve news that sends them spiraling into a whirlwind of emotions. The news that they are never allowed to participate in their sport again.

Cross country runners who have no more cartilage left in their knees and have to start wondering about replacement surgeries.

Football and soccer players who receive one too many concussions and have to stop or else face more severe traumatic brain injuries.

Swimmers who completely tear rotator cuff muscles in shoulders and loose mobility in the shoulder joint.

Explaining to athletes that their career is over (temporarily or determinately) isn't hard to do. Once you explain the injury, you can read on their faces that they are about to ask "this means I'm out right?"

Explaining that their life isn't over, that's the tricky part. Somehow you have to explain if it's a temporary "break" in their career that they are still in for another season in the future. You have to explain that it's better to rest the injury than to train through it and be out for life (then again, telling an athlete to rest is like telling a paparazzi to stop stalking celebrities. It doesn't fly well.).

For those who are out of their sport for life, it's scary. One of the worst case scenarios, depression takes over. If they truly care about their sport, try to show them how they can still be involved with their sport outside of being an athlete. Coaching? Mentoring? Sports Medicine? These are all ways that they can be part of their sport without having to compete.

True, nothing will ever take the place of stepping up onto the blocks/onto a field and feeling that killer adrenalin rush as everything you've worked for comes down to what sometimes is less than 30 seconds.

However, sitting around thinking your life just ended is pretty much doing exactly what you wish you never had to do, completely quit on your sport.

Explaining this to athletes of all levels is a struggle. (The struggle is real). You're no longer dealing with coaches or with parents. It comes down to the patient. It really is like you're the messenger from your patients significant other (that being the sport they participate in) and the message you're telling them is that the relationship between you and your sport is over (thanks to the injury).

 This, honestly, is what I believe would be the hardest part of being a Sports Physician.